One dose of Pfizer, just one! Within 30 minutes, while I was still driving home, I had a sudden feeling of the worst flu. My throat, eyes, lips and neck swelled to double their size and I couldn’t breathe. Within an hour welts appeared on my legs, arms, chest and even in my hair. I was taken by ambulance to A&E and given an epi-pen. Twenty-four months on and I have a formal diagnosis of chronic angioedema and urticaria. I’m no better, every day my lips and face swell. I have drooping eyelids, blurred vision, tremors, uninvestigated and untreated spikes in heart rate for no reason, and protruding veins all over my body. Then there is the horrendous tinnitus and 60 per cent loss in hearing. Sinus problems (lesions in the nasal cavity), pain at the back of the head, stomach pain and an intolerance to more than 200 foods. I can’t go out in sunshine because it literally burns the scalp and skin. This is now my life.
The doctors’ advice is to have the second jab! I don’t think so. It was 18 months and 21 visits to A&E before my GP surgery finally got to see me face to face, and then declared that I was too much of a specialist case for them to treat.
I am no anti-vaxxer. I had the jab in good faith thinking that it would mean life returning to normal, to see my children and grandchildren. The lack of medical care and investigation on any symptoms other than the urticaria and angioedema is both criminal and despicable along with their constant texts and letters telling me to get a second dose.
It’s an emotional journey and a very visual one. I have lost all confidence in socialising; the constant swelling has meant my skin has aged ten years in 24 months. I can no longer see well enough to drive, and that is a loss of independence.
The UK CV Family group https://www.ukcvfamily.org/ is a lifeline for me. I can’t thank the creators of the group enough for giving me the simple realisation I am not alone. Daily we see new members. I welcome them with the same message: welcome and so sorry you have to be here.
The Cochrane mask review I wrote about last week has hit Team Mask very hard, in fact much harder than I thought it would. They’ve been frantically coping for days now – combing through the fine print, seizing upon every moment of expressed uncertainty or caution in the paper to claim that population-wide masking might still be justified, somehow, because reasons.
The dim and eternally concerned Twitter epidemiologist Jennifer Nuzzo (who would be a disgrace to her field, if the field of public health weren’t already a disgrace) posted a hilarious nineteen-tweet thread that gathers all the typical excuses and cries to the heavens for more studies, because the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Intriguingly, as others have noted, Nuzzo used to think totally differently about the utility of masking. In 2006, our epidemiological luminary co-authored a paper on Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza, which flatly admits that “the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets” and that no data support using N95 or FFP2 respirators outside of healthcare settings. Like all pandemic authorities, Nuzzo had sensible ideas right up until the moment her ideas became important.
Tom Jefferson, the lead author of the Cochrane review, has added to the pain and embarrassment of Team Mask by granting this interview to Maryanne Demasi, in which he reiterates bluntly that “there’s no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic,” no evidence that respirators do anything even in healthcare settings, blames misguided mask mandates on bad governmental advisers, and criticises the masking “craziness” that took root in 2020, in which “strident campaigners” – “activists, not scientists” – like “academics and politicians started jumping up and down about masks.” He also makes an observation that is often aired at the plague chronicle, namely that the failure of masks to do very much indicates that virus transmission itself is poorly understood, and far more complicated than we tend to assume. You should read the whole thing for yourself.
Here, I want to highlight one crucial point. Jefferson explains that he and his co-authors were ready to publish a review on the evidence for masking and other physical interventions in April 2020, but that Cochrane held up its appearance by “inexplicably” demanding a further peer reviewer. This effectively delayed publication by months, in precisely the period that novel mask mandates were emerging all across the world. When the review was finally cleared for publication in November – long after its chance to influence mask policies had passed – the authors were directed to insert all manner of language softening their conclusions, and Cochrane included an accompanying editorial on why “Policy makers must act on incomplete evidence in responding to COVID-19.”
Plainly, the conviction that mask mandates were necessary came first; The Science followed. All the while, though, the evidence didn’t go away. It was just suspended slightly out of view, diluted with weak excuses and deprived of influence over policy, until the ideological fervour dissipated and the plain truth could be spoken again. The lesson is that regime authorities, particularly when they enjoy the collaboration of the press and academia, can tell almost any lie, but suppressing the truth requires active effort, and sooner or later their myths come crashing down. The mask mythology was among the first to take shape, and it has been the first to fall.
In the coming months other pandemic fantasies will also begin unravel.
Other than a few dead-end doom addicts on social media, most people agree that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. SARS-CoV-2 has entered a stage of endemicity, similar to that of common cold coronaviruses, where there will be sporadic, seasonal outbreaks of cold and flu-like illness as immunity wanes in recovered and vaccinated individuals.
The pandemic was a worldwide disaster, claiming the lives of millions of people. It wasn’t a war against an enemy, as the virus didn’t surrender or sign any peace agreements. SARS-CoV-2 was contained by population immunity, just as similar pandemic viruses have been in the past.
The origin of the virus is still in dispute. Some virologists have tried to shut down any debate while pushing a zoonotic origin as the only possibility. However, a lab leak is no longer a wild theory, it’s a plausible explanation based on evidence from a variety of independentsources.
Yet there was another parallel disaster that was certainly man-made, and that was the US pandemic response. Panicked health officials and politicians failed to implement measures that would protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19, including elderly in assisted living facilities, which comprised one-third of all COVID deaths. Instead, leaders insisted on harmful and unfocused measures such as shutdowns, school closures, and universal masking, with little evidence of their benefit.
Attention to other medical issues, such as cancer screenings and diagnosis and treatment of other diseases, as well as childhood vaccinations, all disappeared in a wave of COVID monomania. The consequences of this ill-advised singular focus will be with us for many years. It is of paramount importance that the mistakes that led to this man-made disaster are not repeated.
The governments of European countries have begun to conduct public inquiries into their COVID responses, including Norway, Sweden,The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. It is past time for the United States to join this list, and critical given the worldwide influence of the CDC, FDA, and NIH/NIAID.
Members of the US Congress are conducting such an inquiry, and their efforts require the help of physicians, scientists and public health policy experts to identify key policy decisions and provide a rationale for investigating those policies and the officials and government agencies that devised and implemented them, with the ultimate goal of meaningful reform.
With help from Brownstone Institute, the Norfolk Group was organized in May, 2022, with the goal of providing a blueprint containing key questions for a congressional inquiry into the public health aspects of the US response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The group consists of eight scientists, physicians and policy experts, and seven of us met in person in Norfolk, Connecticut over Memorial Day weekend. All eight members continued to meet virtually over the summer, fall, and winter as the document was written and continuously revised.
Because the group was comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds, without oversight from any public or private institutions (including Brownstone), we chose to name ourselves The Norfolk Group, and publish our document independently on the website www.NorfolkGroup.org.
The eight members of the Norfolk Group are:
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD; epidemiologist, health economist, and professor at Stanford University School of Medicine; founding fellow of the Academy of Science and Freedom.
Leslie Bienen, MFA, DVM; veterinarian, zoonotic disease researcher, and faculty member at Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health (through December 31st 2022). She left in January 2023 to work in healthcare policy.
Ram Duriseti, MD, PhD; emergency room physician and computational engineer for medical decision making; associate professor at Stanford School of Medicine.
Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD; physician and PhD epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, clinical researcher in healthcare policy and practicing Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation physician.
Martin Kulldorff, PhD, FDhc; epidemiologist and biostatistician; professor of medicine at Harvard University (on leave); founding fellow of the Academy of Science and Freedom.
Marty Makary, MD, MPH; surgeon and healthcare policy scientist; professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Margery Smelkinson, PhD; infectious disease scientist and microscopist whose research predominantly focuses on host/pathogen interactions.
Steven Templeton, PhD; immunologist; associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine.
The document provides questions and supporting information regarding ten areas of the US pandemic response, including:
Protecting High Risk Americans
Infection Acquired Immunity
School Closures
Collateral Lockdown Harms
Public Health Data and Risk Communication
Epidemiologic Modeling
Therapeutics and Clinical Interventions
Vaccines
Testing and Contact Tracing
Masks
In preparing this document, we did not conduct any interviews or unearth any previously unseen documents. All the information contained in the document was and is publicly available, and we have provided links to each source throughout.
We have detailed evidence that was available at each time point during the pandemic, and have documented instances where the US health agencies, officials, and politicians ignored or suppressed discussion of that evidence. We ask questions that attempt to discover why key individuals failed to consider all aspects of public health instead of engaging in a damaging singular focus on community-wide suppression of an age-stratified and comorbidity-amplified infectious disease. Why was the uncertainty of evidence supporting the effectiveness of mitigation measures not acknowledged? How was pressure from pharmaceutical companies, teachers’ unions, and other special interests related to the abandonment of evidence-based policies? These questions broadly apply to all of the ten areas covered in our document, and together with specific questions and supporting data, resulted in eighty pages. This was no small effort, and I’m proud to have been a part of it.
Our document focuses solely on the public health-related aspects of the US pandemic response. Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 may be in dispute, our document does not ask questions related to this active area of investigation. Separate committees have been and will be organized to address that issue. We have also avoided the topics of economic mismanagement and the role of media in creating or exacerbating pandemic response crises. A media-focused document was released in July, 2022, and an economics-related document was released in December.
Critics will no doubt reflexively label our document as a partisan effort funded with a secret pile of Koch money. Other than the initial efforts of Brownstone Institute to bring us together, there was no outside influence. Our website is self-funded. Understandably, many of our questions and supporting evidence could and likely will be used for partisan purposes, as one party will lead any COVID-19 response commission while the other may be reluctant to cooperate. It is our hope that despite this messy and partisan process, the truth will emerge, individuals will be held accountable, and an opportunity will emerge for serious reform of dysfunctional government agencies.
An inquiry into the US COVID-19 pandemic response cannot be avoided, and we are trailing other countries in efforts to identify mistakes, demand accountability, and propose solutions. It might be an ugly process, but it is a necessary one. We hope our document will move US leaders and policymakers toward the goal of ensuring that the mistakes of our pandemic response are never repeated.
Steve Templeton is a Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is an Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Indiana University School of Medicine – Terre Haute. His research focuses on the immune response to the human opportunistic pathogens. He is currently writing a book on infectious diseases and pandemics.
Tehran – In a lecture and Q&A with foreign journalists last night, strategic analyst Dr. Mostafa Khosh-Cheshm summarized the history and current state of what he described as the US hybrid war on Iran. He asserted that the American campaign has stalled due to Iran’s successful counterattacks and deterrents, but anticipates possible escalation into new battlegrounds despite the American side’s failure to make any progress toward achieving its objectives.
The apparent failure of the Israeli-inspired US hybrid war on Iran comes at the worst possible time for the US empire, which faces impending military catastrophe in Ukraine as even The New York Times has belatedly admitted. Future historians may look back on the neoconservatives’ decision to simultaneously target Russia, China, and Iran as one of the biggest blunders in history, on the scale of those analyzed in Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. Writing of the foolish Goth king Recared, who inadvertently opened Spain to Muslim conquest, Tuchman notes that “for a ruler opposed by two inimical groups, it is folly to continue antagonizing both at once” (p.16). True enough; and how much more foolish to simultaneously antagonize three such groups!
The biggest mistake, from a US geo-strategic perspective, is making an enemy of Iran. China and to a lesser extent Russia are, due to their size and resources, peer competitors whose aspirations the US has reason to wish to contain. Iran, for its part, is a large and important country blessed with significant natural and human resources, but is not a natural peer competitor of the US. But since it occupies a critically-important strategic location at the crossroads of the Eurasia-Africa world island, and has historically suffered from Russia’s southward expansion, Iran and the US have every reason to maintain friendly relations and make win-win deals. The problem, from Iran’s perspective, is that the US seems incapable of making win-win deals (and sticking to them) while respecting the sovereignty of its partners. Instead, it arbitrarily shreds its own solemn agreements and aggressively insists on economically and militarily subjugating other nations, while exporting its own decadence in the form of “woke” obsessions with deviant sexuality, attacks on traditional family structures, nihilistic Soros-funded revolts against all forms of traditional authority, and other bizarre fetishes that the non-Western world wants no part of.
According to Dr. Khosh-Cheshm, the US is attacking Iran with a multi-point hybrid war. He listed the following battlegrounds:
War of perception. The US and its vassals, especially Saudi Arabia, maintain and lavishly fund Farsi-language propaganda media, which work in tandem with Zionist-owned Mockingbird mainstream media to wage psychological war on Iran. Among their mendacious perception-management ops, these weaponized media have created false impressions that “Iranians are rising up against their government,” which leads us to the second category:
Instigating riots/ color revolutions. The CIA and its allies (Soros, etc.) regularly try to overthrow governments they don’t like by fomenting riots and trying to escalate them into bloody civil wars. The trick is to find a way to get a crowd into the street to protest against the targeted government. It’s easy enough to create such a crowd of “protestors” using paid agents (rent-a-mobs) while trolling for dupes on social media. (Note that almost all major social media are controlled by the CIA, as the Twitter Files has revealed.) Once a crowd has taken to the street, paid agents instigate violence by smashing windows, burning shops and cars and police stations, attacking police, and generally inciting mayhem. When the police respond by trying to control the crowd and arresting perpetrators of violence, snipers on rooftops and/or or infiltrators with handguns shoot both police and protestors, with the intention of making each side blame the other. Additionally, knife attacks on police are a new wrinkle the CIA is apparently experimenting with in Iran. 60 police officers were murdered by CIA assets in three months, using the weapons that Mike Pompeo bragged about smuggling to US-supported terrorists in Iran. According to Dr. Khosh Cheshm, protestors facing police were frequently shot from behind with handguns with silencers. Other random people unrelated to the protests, sometimes six blocks or more away, were murdered by the same CIA-trained Operation Gladio professionals. Western media reports falsely blamed these murders on Iranian police. “It’s called ‘taking the toll,’ Dr. Khosh Cheshm explained. Alongside a smaller number of actual victims of the rioters-vs.-police clashes, the Gladio victims inflate the toll and contribute to the impression of outlandish government repression, when in fact it is the government’s restraint, in the face of the murder by CIA terrorists of 60 police in three months, that is outlandish.
The real-life CIA riot campaign in Iran has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The largest crowd of “protestors” anywhere in Iran numbered only around 600, while vastly larger marches have supported the government. (Annual commemoration of the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, including this weekend’s, always draw millions of people.) But CIA-organized protests in dozens of Iranian cities, despite drawing smallish crowds, have provided images, soundbites, and other fodder for the concocted media war.
Iran is vulnerable to these tactics because it bends over backward to protect the right to peacefully protest. Under the CIA-asset Shah’s regime, protests were banned and routinely met with extreme violence by police and soldiers. Protestors were dragged to CIA-built torture chambers and tortured by CIA-trained torturers. The Islamic Republic reacted against this sad history by enshrining the right to protest in the constitution. So protests are constantly happening in Iran, and always have been since 1979. The normalcy of protesting makes it easier for the CIA to get crowds of at least a few hundred people, many of them sincere protestors duped by social media propaganda, into the streets to provide cover for the Operation Gladio operatives’ violence.
Iran’s government has neutralized the CIA color revolution primarily through flexibility and mercy (though the “Iranian war on terror” has unfortunately included a degree of extrajudicial violence as all such efforts do). Several months ago the government ordered police to stop enforcing mandatory hijab, and it is now normal to see a few women in public with fully-uncovered hair. But the vast majority, well over 90%, still cover—showing that there is no mass support for the CIA’s anti-hijab campaign.
The government’s “mercy and flexibility” approach also includes Monday’s announcement by the Supreme Leader pardoning tens of thousands of prisoners, a fraction of whom are protestors. All protestors except paid CIA-Soros agents and terrorists are being pardoned, alongside a much larger number of common criminals. It’s worth noting that Western media reports of protestors being executed are misrepresentations. In reality, the “protestors” who were executed were murderers who stabbed or shot police officers. Their executions came after murder convictions.
Funding separatist terrorist groups. Alongside astroturf protests focusing on the headscarf and economic issues, the US, Saudis, and Israelis have armed, funded, and incited separatist terrorists in Kurdistan and especially in Arabic-speaking Khuzestan. The latter region harbors ISIS-style groups propagandized, recruited, and paid by the Saudis to commit mayhem. Though a nuisance, and a tragedy for individual victims and their families, these groups are too small, and their appeal is too limited, to make a decisive contribution to the hybrid war.
Cyber wars. The US and Israel, not necessarily in that order, have launched what Dr. Khosh Cheshm calls “vast cyber-attacks” on Iran’s infrastructure. Last spring, dozens of Iranian entities were targeted. Shortly thereafter, the Albanian government’s entire data base “vanished into the cloud.” In its place, a message appeared: “We love the people of Albania, but the MEK (the biggest US-supported anti-Iran terrorist group) is there doing cyber and physical terrorism. We are sorry your data has been removed.” NATO threatened retaliation but did nothing effectual. Meanwhile Israel routinely launches anti-Iran cyber-attacks, but Iran’s ability to retaliate in kind, and its increasing reliance of nearly-unhackable homegrown software, has limited the effectiveness of anti-Iran cyber-warfare.
Foreign currency meddling: The US government and its oligarch owners, notably people like George Soros, are experts at attacking the value of targeted nations’ currencies. They have had only modest success at sending the message that Iran’s refusal to surrender in negotiations with the US will be punished with such attacks, which inflict economic pain on ordinary Iranians.
Assassinations: A significant number of Iranian scientists and government officials have been assassinated, chiefly by Israel’s Mossad, but also by the US, as in the case of General Soleimani. Iran’s policy is normally tit-for-tat payback. For example, in response to the murder of Iran’s top physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Israeli rocket scientist Aby Har-Even, the founder and head of Israel’s rocketry and space programs, “succumbed to wounds sustained when rioters torched Efendi Hotel (owned by Israel’s aerospace agency) at the peak of Arab-Jewish violence” according to the Times of Israel. The precisely one hundred stab wounds that ended the life of Har-Even sent a message about the excessiveness of Israel’s murder of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and Netanyahu’s threat against Iran of “death by a thousand cuts.” Note that such presumed Iranian tit-for-tat assassinations are deniable and have not been publicized by either side.
In the case of General Soleimani, Iran is exacting multipronged revenge, consisting of the well-known rocket attack on the US base at Ain al-Assad, Iraq; threatened assassinations of every major US official involved in the murder, with bounties on all their heads (including a one million dollar bounty on Trump); and the eventual termination of the Zionist entity occupying Palestine, and expulsion of the US from the region.
Sabotage. After Israel’s second attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, the center of Israel’s ballistic missile program mysteriously blew up. The mushroom cloud was visible for miles around. An Israeli leader of the program was cited in the media begging “please stop, we’re losing more than the Iranians.” That media story was in fact a covert message asking Iran for a truce.
Shipping war. The US and especially Israel are bent on disrupting Iran’s oil exports and have attacked and seized various Iranian ships, and even non-Iranian ships allegedly containing oil sourced to Iran. Iran has responded, as usual, tit-for-tat retaliation. For instance, after one such ship was seized off the coast of Greece last spring, Iran seized two Greek ships, which were held until the Iranian ship was released. Iran’s ability to retaliate has led to a change in tactics: Now captains are being offered bribes to renege on their delivery agreements. But few if any are doing so, perhaps because making Iran a lifelong enemy is just not worth it.
Sanctions/Economic pressure. Iran is buried beneath layers upon layers of sanctions and has responded by learning how to evade them. During the past year, virtually the whole world, with the exception of a handful of ultra-compliant US vassals, is joining the sanctions-evading game, thanks to the counterproductive sanctions on Russia. Many are asking Iran for advice. Though sanctions have negatively affected the Iranian economy, they have not even come close to damaging it badly enough to make a difference.
Pressuring the IAEA UN, and other international bodies. The US is pushing the IAEA to charge Iran with noncompliance and take it to the UN. But that is a two year process. It would only take two months to achieve similar objectives by invoking the trigger process in the JCPOA nuclear deal. So once again, the US is trying to increase psychological pressure on Iran, but lacks the means to enforce its wishes
Abraham accords. The US has attempted to ramp up pressure on Iran by weaponizing the Arab signatories of the so-called Abraham Accords, a phony Palestine-Israel peace plan that is despised by virtually the entire population of the region. Not only is the Arab public strongly pro-Palestine, as this year’s World Cup in Doha showed, but even the supposedly pro-Zionist Arab leadership is giving the Americans the cold shoulder. Saudi leader Bin Salman, for example, has refused to take Biden’s and Blinken’s phone calls, humiliated Biden with “second-rate guest” treatment, and generally made it clear that Saudi Arabia is no longer taking American orders.
Failure of the Hybrid War
The Israeli-American hybrid war on Iran has stalled, as Iran fights the aggressors to a stalemate on each battleground. Iran has successfully sent the message: “For each wound you inflict, we will retaliate with an equivalent or worse.” As a result, the US is in no position to force Iran into the kind of agreement the Americans want: A renewed “JCPOA” that would not provide Iran with any significant sanctions relief. The Americans want the promised “relief” to only last for three years, after which it would be canceled if Iran doesn’t succumb to American demands unrelated to the nuclear remit. Since no US or European companies will invest in Iran unless they are guaranteed a two or three decade time frame in which they won’t be sanctioned and forced to pull out at a loss, the US proposal as it stands won’t help Iran’s economy and thus offers Iran no incentive to join.
So the hybrid war’s purpose is to bring Iran to its knees and ultimately force it to dismantle its (non-nuclear) rocket program, abandon its ties to Axis of Resistance allies, and thereby deeply compromise its national security and its sovereignty. For Iran, of course, that’s a non-starter. Iran would be happy to comply with the original JCPOA, severely limit its 100% civilian nuclear program, and enjoy genuine sanctions relief. But that’s not enough for the Zionist-run US. Why not? The real underlying issue is Iran’s commitment to the liberation of Palestine. As long as Iran stands by the Palestinians, the US, dominated by Zionist oligarchs, will do everything it can to hobble Iran and ultimately subjugate and enslave it.
The problem is that Iran, like Russia, can match any feasible escalation. Just as the Russians have rough nuclear parity with the Americans, Iran has a formidable non-nuclear “nuclear option”: shutting down oil traffic from the Persian Gulf. With its highly maneuverable navy, a mountainous shoreline bristling with formidable anti-ship missiles, and the ability to easily (and deniably or non-deniably) take out the docks at Ras Tanoura, Saudi Arabia’s only deepwater port, Iran can blow up the world economy any time it wants to. Short of that non-nuclear nuclear option, Iran has every US military installation in the region in its crosshairs, and can lay waste to Israel with its rockets, in response to enemy escalations. The upshot is that Atlantic Magazine’s expert simulation of a US-Iran war showing that Iran would win is even more relevant today than it was in 2004.
The smart move would be for the US to call off its hybrid war. To do that, though, it will have to remove the neocons from power and radically reformulate its policies. That may be easier said than done. But the only alternative is writing a new chapter for the next edition of The March of Folly.
Whenever I go online, I see people posting pictures of plane trails in the sky and asking why we see so many of them. Some argue they are con (densation) trails whilst others say they are chem (ical) trails. Whilst there are very convincing arguments on both sides it is impossible to ascertain the truth. However, we can look at what has happened in the past to give a theory more credibility.
In a previous post, I looked at previous, documented and declassified examples of governments, via the military, spraying their own citizens. All in our best interest of course, until it isn’t.
Today I will look at a tragic story that happened in a North Devon village called Lynmouth in the 1950s.
Lynmouth is a beautiful village on the edge of Exmoor in England.
The river West Lyn and East Lyn flow down from the village of Lynton above and discharge into the sea. If you ever visit the villages and don’t fancy the steep walk up the hill between the two, you can ride in comfort on a water-operated funicular that has been in operation since 1890.
In the early 1950s, the UK government, together with an international team of scientists, decided to start meddling in weather manipulation. Project Cumulus was initiated and was operational between 1949 and 1952. Its purpose was to experiment with various cloud seeding techniques and therefore control when and where it rains.
Between 4 August and 15 August 1952 flights were flown conducting further weather manipulation experiments. However, Project Cumulus abruptly stopped on 15 August 1952. Coincidentally, on the same day a tragedy in Lynmouth unfolded.
Within a number of hours, the biggest flooding event for 300 years hit Lynmouth, destroying hundreds of buildings, bridges, cars and sadly killing 35 people. A further 420 villagers were made homeless. Bodies washed out to sea were never found. One girl who was interviewed at the time lost six family members and spoke about her mother identifying her grandmother’s body. “Mum identified her by this huge wart on her back because she hadn’t got no head, or arms, or legs when they found her.”
90 million tons of water, together with thousands of tons of rock hit the village, destroying everything in its path. Overall that month, North Devon, where the village is situated experience 250 times more rainfall than was normal for August.
Soon afterwards, the remaining villagers called for an investigation and discussed rumours of planes circling before the deluge.
However, the government and the Ministry of Defence denied any “cloud-seeding” experiments had taken place and the tragedy was labelled as a ‘hand of God’ event. Any talk of weather manipulation was considered a conspiracy theory and even to this day it is labelled as such on Wikipedia.
That was until 2001 when the BBC conducted an investigation into the floods and confirmed that secret experiments were causing heavy rainfall. Many of the classified documents had gone missing but the Document team tracked down RAF logbooks and personal testimony.
One pilot described how, as part of Operation Cumulus, he sprayed salt into the air causing a heavy downpour 50 miles away. Other flights using silver iodide are also likely to have taken place.
“The rain was the heaviest for several years – and all out of a sky which looked summery … there was no disguising the fact that the seedsman had said he’d make it rain, and he did.
“Toasts were drunk to meteorology and it was not until the BBC news bulletin [about the Lynmouth tragedy] was read later on, that a stony silence fell on the company,”
The Guardian also reported on the findings, although they now categorise the story in their “silly season” section. They quote a RAF navigator who said “we flew straight through the top of the cloud, poured dry ice down into the cloud. We flew down to see if any rain came out of the cloud. And it did about 30 minutes later, and we all cheered.”
The British Geological Survey examined soil sediments in the district of Lynmouth to see if any silver or iodide residues remain. The testing was limited due to restrictions in place because of foot and mouth disease, and it is inconclusive. However, silver residue has been discovered in the catchment waters of the river Lyn.
The BBC investigation was turned into a Radio 4 programme called “The Day They Made it Rain” in which they suggest that the Air Ministry and Treasury were aware that the experiments were causing damage to civilians.
According to declassified minutes, the war office was interested in increasing rain and snow by artificial means for a number of reasons including:
bogging down enemy movement;
incrementing the water flow in rivers and streams to hinder or stop enemy crossings;
clearing fog from airfields; and
to explode an atomic weapon in a cloud to produce a far wider area of radioactive contamination than in a normal atomic explosion.
But remember, these types of experiments only happened in the past. Your government loves you now and would never do anything like that nowadays.
Without much fanfare, earlier this week Jeff Gerth, a Pulitzer-Prize winning former New York Times investigative reporter, dropped a thorough and damning four-part article dissecting the media’s obsessive reporting on Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. Even more surprising, Gerth’s report, “The press versus the president,” appeared at the in-house organ of America’s most prestigious journalism school, Columbia Journalism Review, which has long been regarded as something of an unofficial ombudsman for the media industry.
If CJR is finally comfortable admitting that the media’s Russiagate reporting was so scandalously bad that it damns the entire industry, that seems like a remarkable admission.
On Twitter, Glenn Greenwald, a left-leaning reporter who made some significant career sacrifices for calling out the media’s bogus reporting on this topic, declared Gerth’s reporting “absolutely devastating on how casually, frequently, recklessly and eagerly the press lied on Russiagate.” Gerth lays out what happened so clearly that it’s hard to imagine fair-minded readers who make it through all 24,000 words of Gerth’s report would conclude any differently. Personally, I’m proud to say that the work of RealClearInvestigations – and my colleagues there, Tom Kuntz, Aaron Mate, and Paul Sperry – are all cited favorably by Gerth as one of the few media outlets that consistently got the story right.
However, as someone who spent much of his time during the Trump years engaged in substantive reporting that questioned and debunked the Russia collusion narrative, my reaction was, well, anger. It’s an emotion not directed at Gerth, who has done courageous work. But the fact that this piece is appearing two years after Trump left office and nearly five years after special prosecutor Robert Mueller failed to substantiate years of anonymously sourced speculation about Russia collusion is a searing indictment in itself.
To start, Gerth demonstrates the media still won’t grapple with the truth. His piece is peppered with big-name reporters and major publications refusing to comment on basic errors or dubious or unethical judgments. Gerth did manage to get Bob Woodward, the dashboard saint of journalism, on the record condemning the media’s failures here. While that’s a notable concession, if respected figures such as Woodward harbored doubts about the media’s conduct, they should have been a lot more vocal – and much earlier.
It’s also understandable why Gerth would want to keep his report narrowly focused on the facts of what transpired. But without any substantive discussion of the media’s motives it’s hard to draw any important lessons from this sorry saga. Gerth does point out that Russiagate has led to an erosion of trust in the media and offers a pallid warning that the media’s “failure will almost certainly shape the coverage of what lies ahead.”
But this is inadequate. Devoid of any broader context about the long history manipulations of America’s national security state or the corporate media’s evolution into ham-fisted left-wing ideologues, one can read Gerth’s dry reporting as a comedy of errors: A bunch of well-intentioned reporters, faced with the challenge of covering a problematic president – and disingenuous Democrats and partisan law enforcement officials – kept bungling the reporting, by getting key facts wrong and committing serious sins of omission.
However, the missing motive suggests something far more sinister. The media’s Russiagate coverage hinged on being extremely trusting of officials in national security and law enforcement agencies that have historically undermined the press and been hostile to civil rights. There’s a saying in traditional journalism – “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Yet, when “deep state” actors with an obvious animus for Donald Trump pushed the narrative that a sitting U.S. president was compromised by a foreign power, a story so explosive it demanded to be thoroughly vetted every step of the way, the mainstream media instead decided to become stenographers.
The blizzard of details necessary to explain the Russia collusion story might also make it seem like discerning the truth was more difficult than it was. If your willingness to believe that Trump was compromised by Russia started out as a political Rorschach test, it quickly became an IQ exam.
Starting before Trump was even inaugurated in January 2017, it was reported that the Logan Act was being used as a predicate to investigate Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. The Logan Act is to national security laws what phrenology is to medical science – it’s a never-enforced 1799 statute that says it’s illegal for private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. Laughed at by constitutional scholars, it’s routinely violated and invariably ignored.
Except that several major media outlets credulously reported on Flynn’s alleged Logan Act violations as if they were a potentially serious transgressions, when it should have been obvious that invoking this ancient and discredited statute was a desperate attempt to justify a politically motivated investigation. What happened to Flynn is just one example out of many where the press inexcusably disregarded glaring truths.
Gerth, to his credit, does a fine job unpacking the story of how Flynn was railroaded by the Justice Department, as well as the absurd credulity of the press regarding the so-called “dossier” on Trump, an obviously untrustworthy document produced by partisan political enemies of the president. Nonetheless, most of Gerth’s examples of questionable interactions between the press and government sources require reading between the lines to assess just how willfully blind the press was to the possibility of law enforcement officials abusing their power.
And given that the key players of the story were Democratic partisans, current and former spies, and shady opposition researchers, it’s also worth asking to what extent the press was being overtly manipulated and deliberately fed bad information. Although Gerth’s reporting suggests a conscious conspiracy, he doesn’t really go there.
Finally, no accounting of the media’s faulty Russia reporting would be complete without seriously evaluating the consequences. Once again, much of this discussion is outside Gerth’s narrower focus on how the sausage was being made in newsrooms. However, he gets close to identifying the gravity of the problem when he notes a fateful coincidence. The FBI’s dubious White House briefing to Trump and Obama on the dossier’s absurd allegations involving Trump and Moscow prostitutes – a made-up event that was promptly leaked to CNN, catalyzing the Russiagate hysteria – occurred on Jan. 6, 2017, four years to the day before the infamous riot at the U.S. Capitol.
These two events aren’t unrelated. Obsessively gaslighting tens of millions of Trump voters with a transparently false narrative that the president was a traitor who pundits openly agitated to remove from office didn’t just badly erode trust in the media. It also made it impossible for the media to summon the institutional trust necessary to persuade Trump supporters – and Trump himself – that Joe Biden’s narrow 2020 election victory was legitimate.
The result is that the shoddy reporting during Trump’s presidency contributed heavily to the frenzied and distrustful atmosphere that undermined Americans’ faith in elections, shook the very foundations of the Republic, and has left us all worried about political stability in the future.
So while Gerth’s careful reporting is noted and appreciated, it is unlikely to produce the kind of self-examination and reckoning necessary to restore trust in the media and the vital role they play in the democratic process. By getting away with it, the media learned all the wrong lessons. My fear is that when asked about the media’s colossal failures in the Trump years, Gerth’s article will be used an excuse instead of an indictment. The members of the press still seeking to dodge accountability will simply be able to point to his article and say, “It’s old news.”
We could end the debate on COVID vaccine safety instantly. All we need is the death-vax record data. But today, that data is being concealed by the health authorities in every jurisdiction. Here’s why.
Executive summary
A simple database of death-vax records should be made publicly available by the CDC and other health authorities worldwide.
The death-vax records can be analyzed in seconds using a variety of totally objective methods to show whether the COVID vaccines have increased or decreased all-cause mortality in each age range.
No medical records, cause of death, etc. are required or needed. Just the age, date of death, and dates of vaccination are all that is required for each death since the start of the COVID vaccination program.
The death-vax data has been collected, but it has never been made publicly available anywhere in the world. There is no PII or HIPAA violation by disclosing the records.
There is absolutely no excuse for this data not to be made PUBLICLY available now.
Because kids are most at risk, universities in particular should be demanding data transparency of the death-vax records.
It is immoral and unethical for universities to mandate COVID vaccines if the health authorities refuse to show us the death-vax database records that would justify their use.
The death-vax record data
The death-vax data consists of one record for each death since Dec 14, 2020 to the present with these columns:
Age
Date of death
Date of each COVID vaccine administered (blank if unvaccinated)
The CDC could quickly collect this information, do the database join, remove the PII fields, and make this database publicly available.
This would reveal to the entire world whether the vaccines are safe or not. Instantly. No more debates.
No medical records are required. No judgment is required. The analysis is all based on mathematics and the law of large numbers. If the vaccines are saving lives, we’ll know it. If the vaccines are killing people, we’ll know it.
Introduction
EVERYONE should be demanding to see the death-vax record-level data. It can be easily compiled. It is dispositive. We’d know instantly whether the vaccines are safe or not. No more arguments. No more debates. No more censorship. One and done.
Yet, nobody in the mainstream infectious disease or epidemiology community seems to care about seeing this data. Nobody is calling for it. Why is that? Are they afraid of being proven they are wrong?
If the vaccine is so safe, they should be shouting for the release of this data from the rooftops because nearly 80% of the public is no longer drinking the Kool-Aid:
But the authorities are remaining silent and keeping the data under wraps. That can only mean one thing: the data is horrible and they know it. That’s why they are hiding it from public view.
That’s not just a hunch. I did my own data collection and analysis. Even after adjusting for the bias of the reporters (by restricting the analysis to just parents and grandparents of the reporter), the signal of harm was huge.
Science used to be about data. Not anymore.
Science used to be about data and what the data shows. Sadly, today, science is about what the CDC says, even if there is no data in support of the recommendation whatsoever.
The most stunning example of this is the “six foot rule.” Did you know that it was entirely fabricated out of thin air? From Presidential Takedown page 49:
What is even more stunning is that the CDC has never admitted this publicly. This is evidence that they are a corrupt organization and the corruption goes to the very top of the organization.
We have over two years of data. Why not make it public?
We now have over two years worth of death and vaccination data for people who died after getting a COVID shot, yet nobody wants to see the record level data tied to the vaccination dates?!?!
Let me be perfectly clear:
This is an abject failure of the entire medical community for not demanding to see this data.
People paid for us to see this data with their lives. Why is it being hidden from us?
In the US, hundreds of millions of people participated in a massive clinical trial and have data to share with people. At least 500,000 of the participants paid the ultimate price: they sacrificed their lives to send a message to America about the vaccines. It is extremely disrespectful to these people to ignore their death data and not share it with the public. Why are we not allowing these people to share their data?
Do you think if we could ask those people right before they died, “Do you want to let others know what killed you?” Do you think they would all say, “No! Don’t let anyone know. Please keep it a secret!”?
Every institution in the world that is recommending or requiring COVID vaccination should be DEMANDING to see this data made public
John Beaudoin and I have been calling for the death data to be set free and made public. We have been ignored.
Why aren’t any of these organizations calling for data transparency here so we can learn the truth?
The mainstream medical community
Heads of state throughout the world
The CDC
The FDA
The White House
Congress
The mainstream media
Public health authorities
Any doctor or nurse who recommends the jab to patients
Universities who mandate the vaccines for students, staff, or faculty
Any organization that supports COVID vaccines for their members, employees, or visitors
The data exists in VSD as well. But the CDC won’t allow anyone to see it.
The data exists in every state health department. But you can’t FOIA it because it requires a join to avoid PII problems and FOIA requests are not allowed if they generate effort like that. So FOIA requests won’t work.
It’s time for everyone to demand that our health authorities “Show us the data!”
We should all refuse to comply until they produce it.
In the same way Tom Cruise said passionately “Show me the money,” everyone all over the world should be equally passionate with their doctors and healthcare authorities and demand: “Show me the DATA” before we agree to comply with their requests/demands regarding vaccination.
Civil disobedience in Canada
Check out this video from True North entitled “Show us the data and evidence” that described the civil disobedience in Canada:
Business owners and local politicians are pushing back against the government’s lockdown measures. Their ask of the government is simple – if you’re going to shut us down, show us the data and evidence.
Calling all parents: ask your school why they aren’t calling for the data to be produced
The data that we have shows that the biggest harm is being done to kids.
Therefore, the biggest urgency is to put pressure on any school or university that recommends or requires the COVID vaccines to drop it immediately
Please ask the university president or head of school at any school your child attends to contact the CDC and let them know that if the CDC doesn’t make the death-vax record level data publicly available with the next 30 days, that the school will suspend their COVID vaccination policies until such time as this data is produced and scientists can analyze it. That is the only ethical thing to do.
You can refer to my article in your email.
The public health authorities have been voluntarily keeping the data secret for two years now. That data would end the debate. We should not let them continue to get away with it.
At a time when concerns about serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines are escalating, one might reasonably expect the World Health Organisation (WHO) – a specialised agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health – to take immediate and decisive action. Perhaps a recommendation to pause the vaccine rollout would be a reasonable step under the circumstances. Or maybe an urgent request to member states to rapidly undertake thorough investigations of the links between the mRNA vaccines and serious physical harms, such as myocarditis. But no, those responses have not been forthcoming. Instead, the WHO has published communication guidance on how to nullify criticism of the vaccines.
The document, titled Vaccine Crisis Communication Manual – a step-by-step guidance for national immunization programmes, was produced in 2022 by the WHO European office with the stated aim of supporting countries ‘in effectively responding to events which may erode the public’s trust in vaccines and authorities that deliver them’. The manual offers detailed recommendations about how those in authority should respond to a ‘vaccine crisis’ (defined as any occurrence that ‘will most likely or has already eroded public trust in vaccines … and may create uncertainty’). The explicit, overarching goal is to ‘rebuild trust in vaccines’.
The guidance is structured – with military precision – around four sequential phases:
1. Co-ordinate & engage
2. Design communication response
3. Monitor public opinion & the media
4. Inform the public
In keeping with the dominant narrative during the Covid era, the presumption is that vaccinations are always for the greater good. Repeatedly asserted throughout the document is that adverse events may not be causally linked to the jabs. Pre-prepared messages are recommended that ‘emphasize the value of immunization based on a risk-benefit analysis’. Somewhat sinisterly, public health officials are advised to ‘use existing or implement new monitoring tools to monitor public opinion’ and to maintain ‘good relations with key journalists and the media’. And when someone dies in the aftermath of vaccination, communicators are directed to say, ‘We are committing all available resources to the investigation of this unfortunate incident and are doing our utmost to find the cause as soon as possible’; (it is doubtful whether the vaccine-harmed population would concur with this claim). Clearly, the overarching goal of this WHO manuscript is to protect the pro-vaccine narrative under any circumstances.
The tone of this WHO document perpetuates the myth that anyone questioning the net benefits of the jabs is an ‘anti-vaxxer’ who is spreading misinformation. One illustrative example is the reference to an earlier – 2017 – WHO publication, titled ‘How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public’. Co-authored by Katrine Habersaat (who is also a co-author of the WHO, 2022, document) the article refers to these ‘vaccine deniers’ as people who have ‘a very negative attitude towards vaccination and are not open to a change of mind no matter the scientific evidence’. According to Habersaat, these agitators ‘censor opposing opinions’ and ‘use personal insults or even legal actions to silence representatives of the scientific consensus’. In light of the widespread vilification and censorship endured by those experts who have, over the last three years, challenged the dominant Covid narrative, the irony of these assertions is off the scale.
There was once a time when the primary aim of the WHO was the provision of accessible and holistic healthcare to all, regardless of socioeconomic status. The content of this Vaccine Crisis Communication Manual provides further evidence that this is no longer the case. The welfare of ordinary people is not the WHO’s priority; the appeasement of their pro-vaccine paymasters now takes precedence.
Vitamin D cuts the risk of death from COVID-19 by 51% and the risk of ICU admission by 72%, a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials has found. The new study, published in Pharmaceuticals, is titled “Protective Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on COVID-19-Related Intensive Care Hospitalisation and Mortality: Definitive Evidence from Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis”. Here’s the abstract, summarising the study’s method and results.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the world’s most important challenges for global public healthcare. Various studies have found an association between severe vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19-related outcomes. Vitamin D plays a crucial role in immune function and inflammation. Recent data have suggested a protective role of vitamin D in COVID-19-related health outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was to better explain the strength of the association between the protective role of vitamin D supplementation and the risk of mortality and admission to intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with COVID-19.
Methods: We searched four databases on September 20th 2022. Two reviewers screened the randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and assessed the risk of bias, independently and in duplicate. The pre-specified outcomes of interest were mortality and ICU admission.
Results: We identified 78 bibliographic citations. After the reviewers’ screening, only five RCTs were found to be suitable for our analysis. We performed meta-analyses and then TSAs. Vitamin D administration results in a decreased risk of death and ICU admission (standardised mean difference (95% CI): 0.49 (0.34–0.72) and 0.28 (0.20–0.39), respectively). The TSA of the protective role of vitamin D and ICU admission showed that, since the pooling of the studies reached a definite sample size, the positive association is conclusive. The TSA of the protective role of vitamin D in mortality risk showed that the z-curve was inside the alpha boundaries, indicating that the positive results need further studies.
Discussion: The results of the meta-analyses and respective TSAs suggest a definitive association between the protective role of vitamin D and ICU hospitalisation.
Despite these highly positive results, the latest official guidelines from NICE still state that vitamin D is not recommended for the prevention of COVID-19. (NICE also doesn’t recommend the use of ivermectin or budesonide.) Yet remdesivir is recommended despite the WHO finding little or no effect. Will NICE now update its guidelines? I wouldn’t count on it.
Dr. John Campbell discusses the new study in a recent video, arguing the evidence on vitamin D is now conclusive and wondering why adequate vitamin D supplementation is not being officially promoted in the U.K. The fact that the MHRA is 86% industry-funded may have something to do with it, he suggests.
A preprint paper has just been published in the Lancet authored by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, ‘Adverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNtech) in Aotearoa New Zealand’. The paper reveals that there is a statistically significant association between Pfizer mRNA vaccination and both myocarditis and acute kidney injury (AKI). Here in little New Zealand, you wouldn’t know it though. MSM has not covered it, anywhere.
AKI, also known as acute renal failure (ARF), is an episode of kidney failure or damage which happens within a few hours or days. It causes a build-up of waste products in the blood and makes it hard for the kidneys to keep the right balance of fluid in the body. AKI can affect other organs such as the brain, heart and lungs.
The study examined the comprehensive medical records of 4million people. There were 1,778 more cases of AKI than predicted from historical pre-pandemic rates – an alarming incidence of one case for every 2,200 vaccinations. In addition to AKI and myocarditis, researchers also found elevated rates of blood clots and platelet damage. The finding of AKI is new and concerning, but incredibly the study concludes that its findings provide assurances about the safety of mRNA vaccines. How could they say that? I am not reassured, I am alarmed – and so should you be.
The study compared the background rates of 12 adverse events of special interest (AESI) with their incidence following Covid-19 vaccination. The study included only events that occurred within 21 days after Covid vaccination which resulted in hospitalisation. Therefore the study specifically ruled out effects of Covid vaccination resulting in hospitalisation or death any time after 21 days and also discounted adverse events for which those affected did not immediately seek hospital treatment.
Was this a credible cut-off point? No. Studies have detected markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein, unbound by antibodies, in the plasma of individuals post-vaccine which can persist well beyond 21 days. For example see here. This indicates that injected mRNA sequences can actively produce spike protein for extended periods. Spike protein is known to be associated with the development of myocarditis for example and is believed to have toxic effects on other organs including the liver.
Was the hospitalisation data a completely reliable measure of the extent of the effects? No, absolutely not. We are a small country and we talk to one another. Multiple people have publicly reported presenting to hospital with concerning symptoms following mRNA vaccination such as tachycardia, chest pains or neurological dysfunction, and being sent home without any investigative tests and a diagnosis of ‘vaccine anxiety’ and an ibuprofen prescription. My daughter-in-law was one of these. My neighbour developed a kidney injury subsequent to vaccination but didn’t report it to a doctor for weeks. She now has difficulty digesting most foods.
GPs and hospital staff have been deliberately manipulated by government propaganda into believing that the mRNA vaccine is safe. GPs who advised their patients that there were risks associated with the jab were told they might be struck off if they persisted – some actually were.
The NZ Ministry of Health did not warn district health boards of the risk of myocarditis until mid-December 2021, near the end of the period covered by the study. This MoH advice described vaccine-induced myocarditis as rare and generally mild. Prior to this there was an obvious incentive to disbelieve and dismiss patients reporting cardiac symptoms. Because GPs were afraid to make any association between the jabs and health conditions, they were also disincentivised to order tests or advise hospitalisation.
There has been no general advice of the risk of renal failure post mRNA vaccination. My local school received a visit from a GP informing staff and students that there were no safety issues with the vaccine and that it had been rigorously tested for over 30 years, a downright lie. As a result, a teacher friend with persistent chest pains had no idea it might be connected with vaccination and did not seek medical help until he unburdened himself to me.
When Jacinda Ardern wrote on her Facebook page that people could comment on adverse effects, expecting a few replies about mild discomfort, 33,000 comments were posted within a matter of hours. Ardern’s staff famously stayed up all night to delete them. As of November 2022, the government has acknowledged only two deaths associated with mRNA vaccination. There are persistent third-party reports circulating that the Ministry of Health made some payments to families whose children died following vaccination on condition that they would not make public comments. As a result, these reports cannot be reliably confirmed or ruled out. If true, possibly these were aimed at reducing vaccine hesitancy among the young.
A concerning issue here is the attitude of the media to reports of vaccine injury. They are ignoring them. Even published studies such as this one are receiving no attention whatsoever. MSM appears to have relinquished its investigative role, leaving the public in the dark.
It is clear that detailed knowledge of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines would enable GPs and hospital staff to deal appropriately and sympathetically with injury. It would also enable doctors and medical staff to relay factual informed consent to patients. This has not happened.
So how far are reporting errors and the 21-day cut-off skewing the authors’ invalid conclusions of vaccine safety? How can we find out? We currently have record rates of excess all-cause mortality, but despite having the data to do so, the MoH has not undertaken any investigation to determine if there is any correlation between all-cause deaths and vaccine status. This simple procedure would settle any controversy, but a mistaken faith in vaccine efficacy has prompted MoH investigators to turn a blind eye to the obvious.
This is exactly the same obfuscation, hiding of data and failure to investigate that governments have promoted around the world. UK Health Minister Maria Caulfield in the House of Commons brushed aside concerns about, and investigation of, excess deaths as if rapidly rising death rates are an entirely ordinary and uninteresting feature of post-pandemic life. Similar requests put to the Minister of Health in New Zealand have been met with silence. Facts don’t count for much when it comes to modern democracy.
Political scientist Ivan Katchanovski – of the University of Ottawa – has revealed that a paper he produced outlining evidence that the February 2014 massacre of Ukrainian protesters by sniper fire, a defining moment of the Western-backed Maidan coup, was not published by an academic journal for “political reasons.”
‘The evidence is solid’
In a lengthy Twitter thread posted on January 6, Katchanovski first laid out the circumstances behind the rejection of his article, and the bombshell evidence included in it. The paper was initially accepted with minor revisions after peer review, and the journal’s editor offered a glowing appraisal of his work, writing:
“There is no doubt that this paper is exceptional in many ways. It offers evidence against the mainstream narrative of the regime change in Ukraine in 2014… It seems to me that the evidence the study produces in favour of its interpretation on who was behind the massacre of the protesters and the police during the ‘Euromaidan’ mass protests on February 18-20, 2014, in Ukraine, is solid. On this there is also consensus among the two reviewers.”
As the editor noted, the massacre was a “politically crucial development,” which led to the “transition of powers in the country” from the freely elected Viktor Yanukovich to the illegitimate and rabidly nationalistic administration of Aleksandr Turchinov, a former security services chief. It was endlessly cited in Western media as a symbol of the brutality of Ukraine’s government and an unprovoked attack on innocent pro-Western Maidan protesters, who allegedly sought nothing more than democracy and freedom.
Rumors that the killings were a false flag intended to inflame tensions among the vast crowds filling Maidan, and provoke violence against the authorities, began circulating immediately.
No serious investigation into what happened was ever conducted by the Western media, with all claims that the sniper attacks were an inside job dismissed as Kremlin “disinformation.” However, even NATO’s Atlantic Council adjunct admitted in 2020 that the massacre was unsolved and that this “cast a shadow over Ukraine.”
Ask the witnesses
It may not remain unsolved for much longer though, due to an ongoing trial of policemen at the scene on the fateful day. The legal action has been unfolding for well over a year and has received no mainstream news attention at all outside Ukraine. Katchanovski drew heavily on witness testimony and video evidence that has emerged over the course of the trial in his suppressed paper.
For example, 51 protesters wounded during the incident testified at the trial that they were shot by snipers from Maidan-controlled buildings, and/or witnessed snipers there. Many spoke of snipers in buildings controlled by Maidan protesters shooting at police. This is consistent with other evidence collected by Katchanovski, such as 14 separate videos of snipers in protester-controlled buildings, 10 of which clearly feature far-right gunmen in the Hotel Ukraina aiming at crowds below.
In all, 300 witnesses have told much the same story. Synchronized videos show that the specific time and direction of shots fired by the police not only didn’t coincide with the killings of specific Maidan protesters, but that authorities aimed at walls, trees, lampposts, and even the ground, simply to disperse crowds.
Among those targeted by apparently Maidan-aligned snipers were journalists at Germany’s ARD. They weren’t the only Western news station in town at the time – so too were Belgian reporters, who not only filmed Maidan protesters screaming towards Hotel Ukraina for snipers not to shoot them, but also participants being actively lured to the killing zone. This incendiary footage was never broadcast.
CNN likewise filmed far-right elements firing at police from behind Maidan barricades, then hunting for positions to shoot from the 11th floor of the Hotel Ukraina, minutes before the BBC filmed snipers shooting protesters from a room where a far-right MP was staying. The network opted not to report this at the time.
We needn’t rely purely on video footage. Over the course of the trial, no fewer than 14 self-confessed members of Maidan sniper groups testified they had explicitly received massacre orders, Katchanovski claims. By contrast, no police officer at the scene has said they were directed to kill unarmed protesters, no minister has come forward to blow the whistle on such a scheme, and no evidence Yanukovich approved of the killings has ever emerged.
Separate from the trial, leaders of the far-right Svoboda party have openly stated that Western government representatives expressly told them before the massacre that they would start calling for Yanukovich’s ouster once casualties among protesters reached a certain number. This figure was even actively discussed by both sides – were five enough, or 20? Or even 100? The latter was the final total reported, and indeed led to calls for the Ukrainian government’s abdication.
Katchanovski previously published a landmark study on the Maidan massacre in 2021, which has been referenced over 100 times by scholars and experts, already making him one of most cited political scientists specializing in Ukraine, according to Google Scholar.
Whatever the nature and source of the political pressure applied to the journal that led to the censoring of the dynamite paper, the move may well backfire massively, in the spirit of the Streisand Effect. Indeed, it could help the truth of what happened on those deadly days come out, and assist in those responsible for the killings being brought to justice.
It should also prompt a wider reconsideration of the nature of Maidan too, and the government it produced. The banning of opposition parties, attacks on the Orthodox Church, the closure of dissident media outlets, and the war on Russian culture and language are all consequences.
By Mazin Qumsiyeh | Popular Resistance | August 18, 2013
There is no way to say this truth nicely: Politicians lie. That includes Japanese, American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian politicians! Is there something more common sense than that? Yet, so many citizens around the world believe their own politicians or wistfully acknowledge lies but think it is part of the job needed to run things. They believe even when politicians contradict themselves blatantly. This phenomenon is rather remarkable. It is a dissonance and disconnect from reality that many seem oblivious to. It is very dangerous because it can lead to accepting rationales for going to war. These can be deadly wars that lead to millions of lives lost as happened in what was called World War 1 and WW2. Even when incredible and declassified evidence abound, politicians continue to lie and old mythologies refuse to die. Here are just a few of the countless lies told to us over the past few decades… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
